This game will -d-e-s-t-r-o-y- all other M&B games, until M&B2. Shame they've wasted time on anti-social single player though.
Caribbean!
- Thread starter Rigadoon
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
- Status
Yes, what a waste 
Sushiman said:Yes, what a waste
Yep. Spending hours upon hours fighting predictable dumb AI instead of real players and having to think. They could have made an awesome multiplayer with depth.
singleplayer is very fun! 
In a pm, the dev said that they definitely would improve quests to reduce repetitiveness and said that although there is no storyline which takes too much time, there would be quest arcs with multiple quests together.
I just realized why WFAS was so mediocre. The devs spent so much time on the boring storylines they didn't have much time to innovate new features into the game. Hopefully that won't happen now as they returned to sandbox.
No.
People dislike Wfas for three reasons.
Firstly, they are prejudiced about the era. In other words: Guns
Secondly: A lot of people do not like the East European setting.
Thirdly: Well, partially what you said. In the eyes of many, it did not bring enough new features to justify it's pricing. Still, it is undeniably the best Mount & Blade as of now.
In my eyes, it is incredible, but even so, It has a LOT of unused potential. There are sooo many 17th century items, troops and features they left out such as:
The game could use a wee bit more pistols(See: The Deluge), Partisans(spear type), proper musketeer hats, plumes, feathers, black reiters, black & white armors, ottomans, dem sticks you deploy the musket on, cannons, burgonets - there is not a single one in wfas. Etc. Etc.
People dislike Wfas for three reasons.
Firstly, they are prejudiced about the era. In other words: Guns
Secondly: A lot of people do not like the East European setting.
Thirdly: Well, partially what you said. In the eyes of many, it did not bring enough new features to justify it's pricing. Still, it is undeniably the best Mount & Blade as of now.
In my eyes, it is incredible, but even so, It has a LOT of unused potential. There are sooo many 17th century items, troops and features they left out such as:
The game could use a wee bit more pistols(See: The Deluge), Partisans(spear type), proper musketeer hats, plumes, feathers, black reiters, black & white armors, ottomans, dem sticks you deploy the musket on, cannons, burgonets - there is not a single one in wfas. Etc. Etc.
YourStepDad said:
Undeniably the best M&B game?
I doubt many people would agree! I wouldn't even call it part of the same series, as it was a different developer that made it using the M&B engine. And I have to criticise your reasons for its lack of popularity as well: if people are 'prejudiced' against guns, that simply means they didn't like them, and if they didn't like them then it is not a good game. Besides which, I should think most of us bought the game knowing full well it had guns and wanting guns, so the idea that people disliked it for this reason is strange to me. Same with the East European setting. What do you think the selling points of the game were? These are the things that distinguished it from previous games......of course upon release we also found out that shodiness and bland, pointlessly vast towns distinguished it from M&B as well. WFAS has some good features but it isn't a great game, and in my opinion is a rather embarassing thing for Taleworlds to be associated with. Hopefully this Caribbean game will be better but I am not holding my breath.
Yes. It's selling point was not the fact it had guns. It was turn off for an overwhelming majority of people, including me.
Gradually however trough various media I have fallen in love with the period, and therefore wfas as well.
The one and only reason it can be called an embarrassment is because the developers launched it half arsed. As for the game itself? Just check the SP and how much better the battles are.
Gradually however trough various media I have fallen in love with the period, and therefore wfas as well.
The one and only reason it can be called an embarrassment is because the developers launched it half arsed. As for the game itself? Just check the SP and how much better the battles are.
What attracted you to it then? And were you unaware it featured guns beforehand? I know I was looking forward to them. I actually enjoyed the multiplayer a lot at first (despite some glaring bugs which were obvious from the first minutes of play), but the singleplayer never really seemed to play well to me.
http://fireandsword.eu/forum/index.php?topic=76.msg522#new
Something I found in the other topic, WFAS 2.
Something I found in the other topic, WFAS 2.
YourStepDad said:
Launched it half-assed? They launched it with no ass, then managed to Frankenstein together a half-ass from discarded bits of Warband, then promised to fix it again later but just left it to rot.
DanAngleland said:
Because it was a new mother ****ing MB.
I saw the qualities in it, is just took a while for me to begin playing it.
Single player never really seemed to play well? How?
Crippling campaign quest bugs aside, the battles themselves are just...what MB was intended to be. They are really well balanced too, unlike the MP. It's vice versa with Warband.
So..Its just about September and still no trailer or announcement...
I mean like taleworlds taking a part like they did with WFAS as well as a trailer.
- Status
